ABSTRACT
The global rise of the COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in anti-Asian discrimination with potentially deleterious effects on individuals of Asian descent. In the present study, we examine how two types of COVID-19-related anti-Asian discrimination and other contemporaneous stressors independently contribute to perceptions of stress in a population-representative sample of Chinese immigrants in North Carolina, as well as the moderating role of ethnic identity on the association between COVID-related discrimination and stress. Analyses rely on data collected among participants ages 18+ in the Chinese Immigrants in Raleigh-Durham (ChIRDU) study who completed surveys in 2018 and during the COVID-19 pandemic (July-September 2020). We utilize ordinary least squares regressions to examine associations of two types of COVID-related discrimination (measured by changes in perceptions of being feared by others and racism-related vigilance) and contemporaneous stressors (measured by general COVID-19-related stressors and acculturative stressors) with perceptions of stress by respondents' pre-pandemic reports of ethnic identity. Controlling for sociodemographic predictors and other stressors, racism-related vigilance is significantly associated with higher perceived stress for Chinese immigrants who identify as completely Chinese. For those who identify as at least partly American, new perceptions of being feared by others during the pandemic are significantly associated with higher perceived stress. Acculturative and COVID-related stressors are independently associated with higher perceived stress for both groups. These results suggest that COVID-related anti-Asian discrimination aggravates the psychological burden of multiple stressors in Chinese immigrants' lives by uniquely contributing to perceptions of stress alongside contemporaneous stressors. The results also highlight the heterogeneous mental health needs of Chinese immigrants and hold important implications for intervention development in the community studied here as well as in other Chinese communities in the US.
ABSTRACT
Background: Maintenance in FL patients (pts) improves progression free survival (PFS). SARS-Cov2 pandemic posed unique challenges for immunocompromised pts. Aims: The aim is to evaluate the outcome of FL pts in maintenance with antiCD20-MoAb during SARS-Cov2 pandemic and how suspension of therapy affected lymphoma outcome and the risk of SARS-Cov2 infection and its morbidity and mortality. Methods: This is an observational, multicenter, retrospective and prospective study. Results: A total of 420 from 18 Italian Hematological Centers were included in the analysis. Median age was 62 years old (range 27-91 years), 216 pts (51%) were male. Main clinical characteristics of the population were: histological grade 1-2 vs 3A in 288 (69%) vs 109 (26%), while not valuable in 23 (5%) pts;limited I-II vs advanced III-IV stage in 57 (14%) vs 361 (86%) pts, not reported in 2 cases. FLIPI score was low vs intermediate vs high in 71 (17%) vs 151 (36%) vs 192 (46%) patients, respectively, not valuable in 6 cases. All 420 patients included were in maintenance treatment with antiCD20 MoAb at the time of the onset of SARS-Cov2 pandemic (March 2020): 333 (79%) pts were receiving maintenance after a first line, while 87 (21%) after a second line. 342 (81%) pts were receiving Rituximab, while 75 (18%) Obinutuzumab, 3 patients did not start the planned maintenance because of pandemic spread. Status of disease after induction was complete remission (CR) in 374 (89%), partial response (PR) in 41 (10%), progressive disease (PD) in 1, not evaluated in 4 pts, respectively. At the end of maintenance was CR in 265 (63%), PR in 19 (4%), stable disease (SD) in one and PD in 14 (3%) patients, respectively, maintenance is stiil ongoing in 121 (29%) pts. Because of SARS-Cov2 pandemic from March 2020 consequences on maintenance treatment were: temporary suspension in 122 (29%), definitively interruption in123 (29%), no modification in 175 (42%) of pts, respectively. Median number of maintenance treatment administered at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic onset was 2 (range 1-12), median number of courses administered at the time of analysis was 8 (range 0-12), in patients who modified treatment because of pandemic median number of performed courses was 7 (range 0-11) and median number of lost cycles were 2 (range 1-12). Pts were divided into two groups according to type of approach to maintenance during pandemic: pts who interrupted maintenance (temporary or definitively): groups A (245 (58%) pts) vs pts who did not modified maintenance: group B (175 (42%) pts). No differences in clinical characteristics, type of therapy and response were observed between the two groups. 29(7%) relapses were observed: 16 (7%) vs 13 (7%) in group A vs B, respectively. 70 (17%) pts experienced SARS-Cov2 positivity: 47 (19%) vs 23 (13%) in group A vs B, respectively. 53 (76%) pts had symptomatic COVID syndrome and 43 (61%) were hospitalized, with no differences between the two groups. Anti-SARS-Cov2 vaccine was administered in 349 patients, serology assessment was done in 46% of cases, showing 21 (13%) reactive vs 138 (87%) not reactive pts, with no differences between the two groups. 21 (30%) pts died because of COVID: 9 (19%) vs 12 (52%) in groups A vs B, respectively. Summary/Conclusion: Suspension of maintenance treatment during SARS-Cov2 pandemic did not show a protection in terms of SARS-Cov2 positivity and morbidity. A trend in lower mortality is suggested. No differences in terms of relapse rate were observed, but longer follow up is needed.
ABSTRACT
Background: Maintenance in FL patients (pts) improves progression free survival (PFS). SARS-Cov2 pandemic posed unique challenges for immunocompromised pts. Methods: This is an observational, multicenter, retrospective and prospective study. The aim is to evaluate the outcome of FL pts in maintenance with antiCD20-MoAb during SARS-Cov2 pandemic and how suspension of therapy affected lymphoma outcome and the risk of SARS-Cov2 infection and its morbidity and mortality. Results: 420 pts from 18 Italian Centers were included. Median age was 62 years old (range 27-91), 216 pts (51%) were male. Main clinical characteristics were: histological grade 1-2 vs 3A vs not valuable in 288 (69%) vs 109 (26%) vs 23 (5%), respectively;advanced stage in 361 (86%), high FLIPI score in 192 (46%) pts. All 420 pts were in antiCD20-MoAb maintenance at the time of SARS-Cov2 pandemic onset (March 2020): 333 (79%) were receiving maintenance after a first line, while 87 (21%) after a second line. 342 (81%) pts were receiving Rituximab, while 75 (18%) Obinutuzumab, 3 pts did not start the planned maintenance. Status of disease after induction was complete remission (CR) in 374 (89%), partial response (PR) in 41 (10%), progressive disease (PD) in 1, not evaluated in 4 patients, respectively. At the end of maintenance was CR in 265 (63%), PR in 19 (4%), stable disease (SD) in one and PD in 14 (3%) pts, maintenance is ongoing in 121 (29%) pts. Because of SARS-Cov2 pandemic maintenance treatment was temporary suspended in 122 (29%), definitively interrupted in123 (29%), not changed in 175 (42%). Median number of maintenance treatment administered at March 2020 was 2 (range 1-12), in pts who modified treatment median number of performed vs lost courses was 7 (range 0-11) vs 2 (range 1-12). Patients were divided into two groups according to the approach to maintenance during pandemic: pts who interrupted maintenance (temporary or definitively): groups A (245 (58%) cases) vs pts who did not modified maintenance: group B (175 (42%)). No differences in clinical characteristics, type of therapy and response were observed between the two groups. 29(7%) relapses were observed: 16 (7%) vs 13 (7%) in group A vs B. 70 (17%) pts experienced SARS-Cov2 positivity: 47 (19%) vs 23 (13%) in group A vs B. 53 (76%) pts had symptomatic COVID and 43 (61%) were hospitalized, with no differences between the two groups. Anti-SARS-Cov2 vaccine was administered in 349 patients, serology assessment was done in 46% of cases, showing 21 (13%) reactive vs 138 (87%) not reactive patients, with no differences between the two groups. 21 (30%) pts died because of COVID: 9 (19%) vs 12 (52%) in groups A vs B. Conclusions: Suspension of maintenance during SARS-Cov2 pandemic did not show a protection in terms of SARS-Cov2 positivity and morbidity. A trend in lower mortality is suggested. No differences in terms of relapse rate were observed, but longer follow up is needed.